The present invention relates to transaction processing in a heterogeneous transaction processing system, and more specifically, to a system, method and article of manufacture for providing interoperability between different transaction processing systems.
A significant number of customers and vendors are either rewriting their current transaction-oriented business applications or writing new ones, using object-oriented methodology and languages. This reengineering has caused many of them to look not only at object-orientation, but also at distributed object-computing infrastructure, such as Object Request Brokers (ORBs) and related services, for deploying applications. Using ORBs provides an xe2x80x9copenxe2x80x9d (platform and vendor-independent) style of application.
Object oriented programming (OOP) has become increasingly used to develop complex applications. As OOP moves toward the mainstream of software design and development, various software solutions require adaptation to make use of the benefits of OOP. A need exists for these principles of OOP to be applied to a universal transaction interface for a plurality of heterogeneous transaction processing systems such that a set of OOP classes and objects for the messaging interface can be provided. OOP is a process of developing computer software using objects, including the steps of analyzing the problem, designing the system, and constructing the program. An object is a software package that contains both data and a collection of related structures and procedures. Since it contains both data and a collection of structures and procedures, it can be visualized as a self-sufficient component that does not require other additional structures, procedures or data to perform its specific task. OOP, therefore, views a computer program as a collection of largely autonomous components, called objects, each of which is responsible for a specific task. This concept of packaging data, structures, and procedures together in one component or module is called encapsulation.
In general, OOP components are reusable software modules which present an interface that conforms to an object model and which are accessed at run-time through a component integration architecture. A component integration architecture is a set of architecture mechanisms which allow software modules in different process spaces to utilize each others capabilities or functions. This is generally done by assuming a common component object model on which to build the architecture. It is worthwhile to differentiate between an object and a class of objects at this point. An object is a single instance of the class of objects, which is often just called a class. A class of objects can be viewed as a blueprint, from which many objects can be formed.
Object-Oriented Programming (OOP) allows the programmer to create an object that is a part of another object. For example, the object representing a piston engine is said to have a composition-relationship with the object representing a piston. In reality, a piston engine comprises a piston, valves and many other components; the fact that a piston is an element of a piston engine can be logically and semantically represented in OOP by two objects.
OOP also allows creation of an object that xe2x80x9cdepends fromxe2x80x9d another object. If there are two objects, one representing a piston engine and the other representing a piston engine wherein the piston is made of ceramic, then the relationship between the two objects is not that of composition. A ceramic piston engine does not make up a piston engine. Rather it is merely one kind of piston engine that has one more limitation than the piston engine; its piston is made of ceramic. In this case, the object representing the ceramic piston engine is called a derived object, and it inherits all of the aspects of the object representing the piston engine and adds further limitation or detail to it. The object representing the ceramic piston engine xe2x80x9cdepends fromxe2x80x9d the object representing the piston engine. The relationship between these objects is called inheritance.
When the object or class representing the ceramic piston engine inherits all of the aspects of the objects representing the piston engine, it inherits the thermal characteristics of a standard piston defined in the piston engine class. However, the ceramic piston engine object overrides these ceramic specific thermal characteristics, which are typically different from those associated with a metal piston. It skips over the original and uses new functions related to ceramic pistons.
Different kinds of piston engines have different characteristics, but may have the same underlying functions associated with it (e.g., how many pistons in the engine, ignition sequences, lubrication, etc.). To access each of these functions in any piston engine object, a programmer would call the same functions with the same names, but each type of piston engine may have different/overriding implementations of functions behind the same name. This ability to hide different implementations of a function behind the same name is called polymorphism and it greatly simplifies communication among objects.
With the concepts of composition-relationship, encapsulation, inheritance and polymorphism, an object can represent just about anything in the real world. In fact, our logical perception of the reality is the only limit on determining the kinds of things that can become objects in object-oriented software. Some typical categories are as follows:
Objects can represent physical objects, such as automobiles in a traffic-flow simulation, electrical components in a circuit-design program, countries in an economics model, or aircraft in an air-traffic-control system.
Objects can represent elements of the computer-user environment such as windows, menus or graphics objects.
An object can represent an inventory, such as a personnel file or a table of the latitudes and longitudes of cities.
An object can represent user-defined data types such as time, angles, and complex numbers, or points on the plane.
With this enormous capability of an object to represent just about any logically separable matters, OOP allows the software developer to design and implement a computer program that is a model of some aspects of reality, whether that reality is a physical entity, a process, a system, or a composition of matter. Since the object can represent anything, the software developer can create an object which can be used as a component in a larger software project in the future.
If 90% of a new OOP software program consists of proven, existing components made from preexisting reusable objects, then only the remaining 10% of the new software project has to be written and tested from scratch. Since 90% already came from an inventory of extensively tested reusable objects, the potential domain from which an error could originate is 10% of the program. As a result, OOP enables software developers to build objects out of other, previously built, objects. This process closely resembles complex machinery being built out of assemblies and sub-assemblies. OOP technology, therefore, makes software engineering more like hardware engineering in that software is built from existing components, which are available to the developer as objects. All this adds up to an improved quality of the software as well as an increased speed of its development.
Programming languages are beginning to fully support the OOP principles, such as encapsulation, inheritance, polymorphism, and composition-relationship. With the advent of the C++ language, many commercial software developers have embraced OOP. C++ is an OOP language that offers a fast, machine-executable code. Furthermore, C++ is suitable for both commercial-application and systems-programming projects. For now, C++ appears to be the most popular choice among many OOP programmers, but there is a host of other OOP languages, such as Smalltalk, common lisp object system (CLOS), and Eiffel. Additionally, OOP capabilities are being added to more traditional popular computer programming languages such as Pascal.
The benefits of object classes can be summarized, as follows:
Objects and their corresponding classes break down complex programming problems into many smaller, simpler problems.
Encapsulation enforces data abstraction through the organization of data into small, independent objects that can communicate with each other. Encapsulation protects the data in an object from accidental damage, but allows other objects to interact with that data by calling the object""s member functions and structures.
Subclassing and inheritance make it possible to extend and modify objects through deriving new kinds of objects from the standard classes available in the system. Thus, new capabilities are created without having to start from scratch.
Polymorphism and multiple inheritance make it possible for different programmers to mix and match characteristics of many different classes and create specialized objects that can still work with related objects in predictable ways.
Class hierarchies and containment hierarchies provide a flexible mechanism for modeling real-world objects and the relationships among them.
Libraries of reusable classes are useful in many situations, but they also have some limitations. For example:
Complexity. In a complex system, the class hierarchies for related classes can become extremely confusing, with many dozens or even hundreds of classes.
Flow of control. A program written with the aid of class libraries is still responsible for the flow of control (i.e., it must control the interactions among all the objects created from a particular library). The programmer has to decide which functions to call at what times for which kinds of objects.
Duplication of effort. Although class libraries allow programmers to use and reuse many small pieces of code, each programmer puts those pieces together in a different way. Two different programmers can use the same set of class libraries to write two programs that do exactly the same thing but whose internal structure (i.e., design) may be quite different, depending on hundreds of small decisions each programmer makes along the way. Inevitably, similar pieces of code end up doing similar things in slightly different ways and do not work as well together as they should.
Class libraries are very flexible. As programs grow more complex, more programmers are forced to reinvent basic solutions to basic problems over and over again. A relatively new extension of the class library concept is to have a framework of class libraries. This framework is more complex and consists of significant collections of collaborating classes that capture both the small scale patterns and major mechanisms that implement the common requirements and design in a specific application domain. They were first developed to free application programmers from the chores involved in displaying menus, windows, dialog boxes, and other standard user interface elements for personal computers.
Frameworks also represent a change in the way programmers think about the interaction between the code they write and code written by others. In the early days of procedural programming, the programmer called libraries provided by the operating system to perform certain tasks, but basically the program executed down the page from start to finish, and the programmer was solely responsible for the flow of control. This was appropriate for printing out paychecks, calculating a mathematical table, or solving other problems with a program that executed in just one way.
The development of graphical user interfaces began to turn this procedural programming arrangement inside out. These interfaces allow the user, rather than program logic, to drive the program and decide when certain actions should be performed. Today, most personal computer software accomplishes this by means of an event loop which monitors the mouse, keyboard, and other sources of external events and calls the appropriate parts of the programmer""s code according to actions that the user performs. The programmer no longer determines the order in which events occur. Instead, a program is divided into separate pieces that are called at unpredictable times and in an unpredictable order. By relinquishing control in this way to users, the developer creates a program that is much easier to use. Nevertheless, individual pieces of the program written by the developer still call libraries provided by the operating system to accomplish certain tasks, and the programmer must still determine the flow of control within each piece after it""s called by the event loop. Application code still xe2x80x9csits on top ofxe2x80x9d the system.
Even event loop programs require programmers to write a lot of code that should not need to be written separately for every application. The concept of an application framework carries the event loop concept further. Instead of dealing with all the nuts and bolts of constructing basic menus, windows, and dialog boxes and then making these things all work together, programmers using application frameworks start with working application code and basic user interface elements in place. Subsequently, they build from there by replacing some of the generic capabilities of the framework with the specific capabilities of the intended application.
Application frameworks reduce the total amount of code that a programmer has to write from scratch. However, because the framework is really a generic application that displays windows, supports copy and paste, and so on, the programmer can also relinquish control to a greater degree than event loop programs permit. The framework code takes care of almost all event handling and flow of control, and the programmer""s code is called only when the framework needs it (e.g., to create or manipulate a proprietary data structure). A programmer writing a framework program not only relinquishes control to the user (as is also true for event loop programs), but also relinquishes the detailed flow of control within the program to the framework. This approach allows the creation of more complex systems that work together in interesting ways, as opposed to isolated programs, having custom code, being created over and over again for similar problems.
Thus, as is explained above, a framework basically is a collection of cooperating classes that make up a reusable design solution for a given problem domain. It typically includes objects that provide default behavior (e.g., for menus and windows), and programmers use it by inheriting some of that default behavior and overriding other behavior so that the framework calls application code at the appropriate times.
There are three main differences between frameworks and class libraries:
Behavior versus protocol. Class libraries are essentially collections of behaviors that you can call when you want those individual behaviors in your program. A framework, on the other hand, provides not only behavior but also the protocol or set of rules that govern the ways in which behaviors can be combined, including rules for what a programmer is supposed to provide versus what the framework provides.
Call versus override. With a class library, the code the programmer instantiates objects and calls their member functions. It""s possible to instantiate and call objects in the same way with a framework (i.e., to treat the framework as a class library), but to take full advantage of a framework""s reusable design, a programmer typically writes code that overrides and is called by the framework. The framework manages the flow of control among its objects. Writing a program involves dividing responsibilities among the various pieces of software that are called by the framework rather than specifying how the different pieces should work together.
Implementation versus design. With class libraries, programmers reuse only implementations, whereas with frameworks, they reuse design. A framework embodies the way a family of related programs or pieces of software work. It represents a generic design solution that can be adapted to a variety of specific problems in a given domain. For example, a single framework can embody the way a user interface works, even though two different user interfaces created with the same framework might solve quite different interface problems.
Thus, through the development of frameworks for solutions to various problems and programming tasks, significant reductions in the design and development effort for software can be achieved. A preferred embodiment of the invention utilizes an object-oriented paradigm that is seen by customers and vendors to provide significantly cheaper application development, in terms of resources required and re-usability of functions and code. However, nearly everyone who has business-and mission-critical applications currently uses a Transaction Processing (TP) monitor system. Today, the most prevalent TP monitor is the Customer Information Control System (CICS) from IBM, followed closely by Information Management System (IMS) from IBM. Other key TP monitors are Pathway from Tandem and Tuxedo from BEA systems. TP monitoring systems are of increasing importance to major banks and airlines.
In the future, the Object Management Group (OMG)-defined Common Object Request Broker Architecture (CORBA), Object Request Broker (ORB) and CORBA Object Transaction Services (OTS), and Microsoft""s OLE TP/Network TP will be used to deploy distributed applications. These tools may eventually replace today""s special purpose TP monitors. CORBA is a standard for distributed objects being developed by the OMG. The OMG is a consortium of software vendors and end users. Many OMG member companies are developing commercial products that can support these standards and/or are developing software that uses this standard. CORBA provides the mechanisms by which objects transparently make requests and receive responses, as defined by OMG""s ORB. The CORBA ORB provides interoperability between applications built in (possibly) different languages, running on (possibly) different machines in heterogeneous distributed environments. It is the cornerstone of OMG""s CORBA architecture.
Interoperability between existing TP monitors and new styles of distributed computing using ORBs will be key to an orderly and low-risk migration to new business applications. Thus, there is a requirement for a product that provides transaction interoperability components that run on the popular client platforms, e.g. NT, Sun, HP and DEC and inter-operate with large server systems, e.g. MVS, Tandem, SP2 and HP. These components must allow new (object-oriented) business applications to inter-operate with current TP monitors, using APIs based on a standard object model. The goal of the API design is to allow an application programmer access to services and data residing in an existing TP monitor environment, without requiring the programmer to understand the TP monitor programming model.
A computer implemented universal, user interface to a plurality of heterogeneous transaction processing systems which allows an application program to access transactions and data residing in an existing transaction processing system is disclosed. The system utilizes a communication link between the application and a transaction processor interoperability component. Then, the system determines which of the one or more transaction processors will process transactions for the application and establishes a communication link between the transaction processor interoperability component and the transaction processor that will process transactions for the application. Then, as the application transmits a transaction from the application to the transaction processor interoperability component, the transaction is formatted by the transaction processor interoperability component for compatability with the transaction processor that will process transactions for the application, and finally transmitting the formatted transaction to the transaction processor that will process transactions for the application.